0
0

If I were an Obama Supporter...


 invite response                
2012 Jul 30, 4:32am   15,987 views  29 comments

by Rent4Ever   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

I would be very very worried right now. For an incumbent to be essentially tied (or losing according to Rasmussen) at this early stage of the presidential campaign is almost unprecedented. And it is clearly showing in the way Obama is stumping. Incumbents are not supposed to be the candidate that goes on the attack, the challenger is. This campaign is essentially being run backwards, and that is because Romney is thrilled with his polling this early in the campaign and Obama is worried.

#politics

Comments 1 - 29 of 29        Search these comments

1   edvard2   2012 Jul 30, 4:53am  

Well, I'm not worried, thus so much for that theory...

2   anonymous   2012 Jul 30, 5:31am  

The last thing I want to see is potential obama voters being complacent and reading polls saying he's way out ahead, and then staying home for the election. I despise obama, but less so then mitt, and what with the possibility of gop taking control of the senate, I'm fine with the devil we know in obama running the show, while the gop is in charge.

That and I am betting on obama every chance I get, what with these cheap prices

3   edvard2   2012 Jul 30, 6:09am  

I think that none of this is exactly compelling evidence. There will probably be the most sway in opinion once the actual debates begin. As of now, neither candidate has mentioned specifics in regards to what they plan on doing to fix the economy.

4   Rent4Ever   2012 Jul 30, 6:21am  

edvard2 says

As of now, neither candidate has mentioned specifics in regards to what they plan on doing to fix the economy.

I think it will really heat up when all the 527 groups and soft money start to dictate some of the dialogue between the campaigns. That is always the most entertaining.

5   freak80   2012 Jul 30, 6:22am  

"I've voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

Seriously who cares who wins at this point? It's all about the money.

6   StillLooking   2012 Jul 30, 6:26am  

During the primaries when Ron Paul was there, Romney talked about getting the government out of the housing business.

I have always been a Democrat, but if Romney would show that he would act on getting government out of housing I might even vote for him.

7   Rent4Ever   2012 Jul 30, 6:30am  

StillLooking says

I have always been a Democrat, but if Romney would show that he would act on getting government out of housing I might even vote for him.

I agree, I would love to see some strong statements about government getting out of housing and let the market get back to something that resembles a free one.

8   freak80   2012 Jul 30, 6:38am  

Rent4Ever says

I agree, I would love to see some strong statements about government getting out of housing and let the market get back to something that resembles a free one.

I'm sure Romney would have no problem telling you exactly what you want to hear, so that you vote for him.

Then, once in office, he'll do the exact opposite.

That's politics.

9   Rent4Ever   2012 Jul 30, 6:41am  

freak80 says

I'm sure Romney would have no problem telling you exactly what you want to hear, so that you vote for him.

Then, once in office, he'll do the exact opposite.

That's politics.

Come on, no faith in politics?

10   StillLooking   2012 Jul 30, 7:07am  

Rent4Ever says

I agree, I would love to see some strong statements about government getting out of housing and let the market get back to something that resembles a free one.

I'm sure Romney would have no problem telling you exactly what you want to hear, so that you vote for him.

Then, once in office, he'll do the exact opposite.

That's politics.

I would only vote for him if he stone cold commits on this point and I don't expect him to do that.

11   Rent4Ever   2012 Jul 30, 7:10am  

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Which poll has been scientifically proven to be the most accurate in the 2008 election? Rasmussen:

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%20election.pdf

Maybe because they better qualify the participants as "likely voters." Yes I know, and Rasmussen is the poll in the news recently showing Romney leading. I know it's really unfortunate when the most accurate poll in the last election is the one at odds with your political stance.

Why are you so angry?

12   Rent4Ever   2012 Jul 30, 7:33am  

You have a perfect avatar.

13   HEY YOU   2012 Jul 30, 8:49am  

I'm sure all the polls on 7-30-2012 will determine the outcome of the election.

14   mell   2012 Jul 30, 8:53am  

Who cares - it's a one party system. Mitt Obama or Barack Romney - your pick ;)

15   Rent4Ever   2012 Jul 30, 9:14am  

HEY YOU says

I'm sure all the polls on 7-30-2012 will determine the outcome of the election.

Great point, which brings me back to what I was originally saying. Obama is swinging as the incumbent, and Mitt is just doing nothing and gaining ground. This is unprecedented.

16   CL   2012 Jul 30, 9:17am  

Rent4Ever says

That's funny because 538, your own source, in 2008 and 2010 rated Rasmussen very high in their pollster rankings.

Rasmussen has gone steadily downhill, and is routinely considered an outlier. I believe Rasmussen started selling is services to groups that manipulate the questions so as to give a rightward tilt. Even with Rasmussen included, Obama leads.

Realclearpolitics is a rightwing site too. But the aggregate polling is quite good.

18   Rent4Ever   2012 Jul 30, 9:20am  

CL says

Rasmussen has gone steadily downhill, and is routinely considered an outlier. I believe Rasmussen started selling is services to groups that manipulate the questions so as to give a rightward tilt. Even with Rasmussen included, Obama leads.

Whatever the status of the polling, my point is that at this stage of the campaigns, an incumbent is not supposed to be statistically tied with their challenger. Obama was up a lot more just a short time ago. The gap isn't supposed to close this quickly.

19   Rent4Ever   2012 Jul 30, 9:31am  

My point and original post has nothing to do with the specifics of the polls. But rather that the trends of both the polls and the events of the campaign indicate a worried and panicked Obama campaign and a calm Romney Campaign. Something that Obama supporters should be concerned with and is very surprising at this stage of the game.

21   CL   2012 Jul 30, 9:39am  

Rent4Ever says

My point and original post has nothing to do with the specifics of the polls

I thought the premise of your post was, "Look at the polls. Obama and Romney are so close, it must worry Obama and his supporters. "

I'm worried about fundraising, but I think that this could be a case of too much is too much. Extra money is always helpful, but it may not really change the trajectory of Romney's failed campaign.

And he certainly doesn't get better with experience or opportunity. Every time he talks he alienates another group he needs to broaden the base, and to therefore, win.

Given that his base already contains many shaky constituents, he's all but doomed.

22   CL   2012 Jul 30, 10:22am  

Rent4Ever says

"Cling to their guns and religion"

That, too, was out of context. But I agree even with the out-of-context quote. Desperate people DO cling to guns and religion at desperate times.

Gun-owners and religious folks would agree. What's the problem there, except for politics?

23   Rent4Ever   2012 Jul 30, 12:52pm  

Fundraising matters, and it matters a lot, so you should be worried about that.

Fair or not, but if the economy stalls in any significant way, or unemployment goes up, Obama will have a very hard time to win and there is no way around it.

24   JodyChunder   2012 Jul 30, 1:04pm  

CL says

Desperate people DO cling to guns and religion at desperate times.

This is true and I don't get what's so controversial about it. Just dumb. Guns and Bibles and desperation go together like cheese and crackers. Big deal.

25   deepcgi   2012 Jul 30, 1:21pm  

I would say the left-leaning cling to their entitlements and fiat money supply.

The right leans on the fiat as well...in fact, both sides are Keynesian. I will not vote Keynesian again, because for all of my agnostic attitude, I am morally opposed to the reckless destruction of the wealth of those who primarily are the most frugal, by those who are the most foolhardy. In the economic sense, it's true that we are choosing between two of the same cloth.

26   JodyChunder   2012 Jul 30, 1:26pm  

What we see being touted as Keynesian economic policy is a big fat bastardization of actual Keynesian policy by snot-nosed baby boomers. First off, Keynes suggested that in rich times, we salt away the better portion of our profits for the inevitable hard times. Sounds good, right? In other words, don't piss it away in a bacchanalia live-for-today manner.

He also states that his policies work best in a non-globalized economy.

27   freak80   2012 Jul 31, 12:11am  

JodyChunder says

He also states that his policies work best in a non-globalized economy.

That's just it. Any "stimulus" we do just creates new Wal-Mart "associates" and new slave-labor jobs in China.

28   marcus   2012 Jul 31, 1:31am  

IF you like Romney's chances, bet on him winning either in Vegas or online.

Currently you can get close to 3:2 odds. That is for every $100 you bet on Romney, you will win $140 if he wins (actually 7:5 odds)

Unfortunately, if you wanted to vote on Obama winning, you have to bet $170 to win $100.

http://sports.bovada.lv/sports-betting/political-props.jsp

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions